ML072780484

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Oyster Creek September 2007 Evidentiary Hearing - Applicant Exhibit 39, Letter from Dr. H. S. Mehta (GE) to Dr. S. Tuminelli (Ocngs), Sandbed Local Thinning and Raising the Fixity Height Analyses (Line Items 1 & 2 in Contract #PC-0391407).
ML072780484
Person / Time
Site: Oyster Creek
Issue date: 12/11/1992
From: Mehta H
General Electric Co
To: Tumminelli S
GPU Nuclear Corp, NRC/SECY
SECY RAS
References
50-219-LR, AmerGen-Applicant-39, RAS 14253
Download: ML072780484 (33)
v • d • e


Text

-noAl /4 5 fq6 APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 39 GE Nuclea: Enfera DOCKETED USNRC U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION October 1, 2007 (10:45am)

Inthe Maile of ~ 1 1\ ~ 0 I December 11, 1992 OFFICE OF SECRETARY Docet t4o.M-01) .2. Official Exhibit No.

RULEMAKINGS AND ADJUDICATIONS STAFF OFFERED Xnz-p. Intervenor Tro: Dr. Stephen Tumminelli NRNStift 0 r /

_tnss1Panel Manager, Engineering Mechanics GPU Nuclear Corporation IOENTIFIED on .11 NWnssPnlI/

1 Upper Pond Road Action Taken: 60 1TE REJECTED WITHDRAWN Parsippany, NJ 07054 Repotte/Clerk.

Subject:

Sandbed Local Thinning and Raising the Fixity Height Analyses (Line Items 1 and 2 in Contract # PC-0391407)

Dear Dr. Tumminelli:

The attached letter report documents the results of subject analyses- The original purchase order called for the analyses to be conducted on a spherical panel model rather than on the full pie slice model. However, the results are more useful when conducted on the full pie slice model since in that case no interpretation is required regarding the relationship between the spherical panel results and the pie slice model results. The pie slice model we have used in these studies has the refined mesh in the sandbed region.

A 3.5" PC Disk containing three ANSYS input files (0.636" case, 0.536" case and 1 foot wall case) is also enclosed with this letter. The detailed calculations have been filed in Chapter 10 of our Design Record File No. 00664.

This transmittal completes the scope of work identified in the subject PO. If you have any questions on the above item, please give me a call.

Sincerely, H.S. Mehta, Principal Engineer Materials Monitoring & Structural Analysis Services Mail Code 747; Phone (408) 925-5029

Attachment:

Letter Report cc: D.K. Henrie (w/o Attach.)

J.M. Miller (w/o Attach.)

S. Ranganath (w/o Attach.)

HSMOC-57.wp Te iplczt-e--CCV'- o 515C V- ;--

APPLICANT'S EXHIBIT 39 GE Nuclea.- Enerai U.S. NUCLEAR REGLIJiATORY CoMMISSION December 1, 1992 Inthe Matter of Docket No._ _ Official Exhibit No.

OFFERED by, Applicapt- !: :- ....- e w no

  • ro: Dr. Stephen Tumminelli NbIC$.'-:

Manager, Engineering Mechanics GPU Nuclear Corporation IDENTIFIED on.-el__:__;__._e 1 Upper Pond Road Parsippany, NJ 07054 Action Taken: ADMIlTED REJECTED WITHDRAWN ReporterlClerk

Subject:

Sandbed Local Thinning and Raising the Fixity Height Analyses (Line Items 1 and 2 in Contract # PC-0391407)

Dear Dr. Tumminelli:

The attached letter report documents the results of subject analyses. The original purchase order called for the analyses to be conducted on a spherical panel model rather than on the full pie slice model. However, the results are more useful when conducted on the full pie slice model since in that case no interpretation is required regarding the relationship between the spherical panel results and the pie slice model results. The pie slice model we have used in these studies has the refined mesh in the sandbed region.

A 3.5' PC Disk containing three ANSYS input files (0.636" case, 0.536" case and I foot wall case) is also enclosed with this letter. The detailed calculations have been filed in Chapter 10 of our Design Record File No. 00664.

This transmittal completes the scope of work identified in the subject PO. If you have any questions on the above item, please give me a call.

Sincerely, H,S. Mehta, Principal Engineer Materials Monitoring & Structural Analysis. Services Mail Code 747; Phone (408) 925-5029

Attachment:

Letter Report cc: D.K. Henrie (w/o Attach.)

J.M. Miller (w/o Attach.)

S. Ranganath (w/o Attach.)

HSMOC-57.wp

~))/7y LETTER REPORT ON ADDITIONAL SANDBED REGION ANALYSES 1.0 SCOPE AND BACKGROUND Structural Analyses of the Oyster Creek drywell assuming a degraded thickness of 0.736 inch in the sandbed region (and sand removed) were documented in GENE Report Numbers 9-3 and 9-4. A separate purchase order was issued (Contract # PC-0391407) to perform additional analyses, The PO listed the additional analyses under two categories:

Line Item 001 and Line item 002. This letter report documents the results of these analyses.

The additional analyses are the following:

(1) Investigate the effect on the buckling behavior of drywell from postulated local thinning in the sandbed region beyond the uniform projected thickness of 0.736" used in the above mentioned reports (Line Item 001),

(2) Determine the change in the drywell buckling margins when the fixity point at the bottom of the sandbed is moved upwards by = I foot to simulate placement of concrete (Line Item 002).

The original PO called for the Line Item 001 analyses to be conducted on a spherical panel. The relative changes in the buckling load factors were to be assumed to be the same for the global pie slice model. However, the mesh refinement activity on the global pie slice model and the availability of work station, has given us the capability to conduct the same analyses.on the global pie slice model itself, thus eliminating the uncertainties regarding the correlation between the panel model and the pie slice model.

All of. the results reported in this report are based on the pie slice model with a refined mesh in the sandbed region.

2.0 LINE ITEM 001 Figure la shows the local thickness reductions modeled in the pie slice model. A locally thinned region of - 6"x i2'" is modeled. The thickness of this region is 0.636' in one case and 0.536" in the other case. The transition to the sandbed projected thickness of 0.736" occurs over a distance of 12" (4 elements).

The various thicknesses indicated in Figure la were incorporated in the pie slice model by defining new real constants for the elements involved. The buckling analyses conducted as a result of mesh refinement indicated that the refueling loading condition is the governing case from the point of view of ASME Code margins. Therefore, the stress and buckling analyses were conducted using the refueling condition loadings. The center of the thinned area was located close to the calculated maximum displacement point in ihe refueling condition buckling analyses with uniform thickness of 0.736 inch. Figure lb shows the location of the thinned area in the pie slice model.

2.1 0.536 Inch Thickness Case Figures 2 through 5 show the membrane meridional and circumferential stress distributions from the refueling condition loads. As expected, the tensile circumferential stress (Sx in element coordinate system) and the compressive meridional stress (Sy in element coordinate system) magnitudes in the thinned region are larger than those at the other edge of the model where the thickness is 0.736 inch. However, this is a local effect and the average meridional stress and the average circumferential stress is not expected to change significantly.

Figures 6 and 7 show the first buckling mode with the symmetric boundary conditions at both the edges of the model (sym-sym). This mode is clearly associated with the thinned region. The load factor value is 5.562. The second mode with the same boundat-y conditions is also associated with the thinned region. Figure 8 shows the buckled shape.

The load factor value is 5.872.

Next, buckling analyses were conducted with the symmetric boundary conditions specified at the thinned edge and the asymmetric boundary conditions at the other edge (sym-asym).

The load factor of the first mode for this case was 5.58. Figure 9 shows the buckling mode shape. It is clearly associated with the thinned region. Figure 10 shows the buckled mode shape with asymmetric boundary conditions at the both edges (asym-asym). As expected, the load factor for this case is considerably higher (7.037).

f c ý7 Thus, the load factor value of 5.562 is the lowest value obtained. The load factor for the same loading case (refueling condition) with a uniform thickness of 0-736" was 6.141.

Thus, the load factor is predicted to change from 6.141 to 5.562 with the postulated thinning to 0.536'.

2.2 0.636 Inch Thickness Case Figures 1I through 14 show the membrane meridional and circumferential stress distrnkutions from the refueling condition loads. As expected, the tensile circumferential stress (Sx in element coordinate system) and the compressive meridional stress (Sy in element coordinate system) magnitudes in the thinned region are larger than those at the other edge of the model where the thickness is 0.736 inch. However, this is a local effect and the average meridional stress and the average circumferential stress is not expected to change significantly.

Figures 15 and 16 show the first buckling mode with the symmetric boundary conditions at both the edges of the model (sym-sym). This mode is clearly associated with the thinned region. The load factor value is 5.91.

Next, buckling analysis was conducted with the symmetric boundary conditions specified at the thinned edge and the asymmetric boundary conditions at the other edge. The load factor of the first mode for this case was 5.945. Figure 17 shows the buckling mode shape. It is clearly associated with the thinned region. Based on the results of 0.536" case, the load factor for asym-asym case is expected to be considerably higher.

Thus, the load factor value of 5.91 is the lowest value obtained. The load factor for the same loading case (refueling condition) with a uniform thickness of 0.736" was 6.141.

Thus, the load factor is predicted to change from 6.141 to 5.91 with the postulated thinning to 0.636".

2.3 Summary The load factors for the postulated 0.536" and 0.636" thinning cases are 5.562 and 5.91, respectively. These values can be compared to 6.141 obtained for the case with a uniform sandbed thickness of 0.736 inch.

3.0 LWNEITEM 002 The objective of this task was to determine the change in the drywell buckling margins when the fixity point at the bottom of the sandbed is moved upwards by -1 foot to simulate placement of concrete. The elements in the sandbed region are approximately 3-i-ch square. Thus the nodes associated with the bottom four row of elements (nodes 1027 through 1271, Figure 18) were fixed in all directions.

The buckling analyses conducted as a result of mesh refinement indica-2d that the refueling loading condition is the governing case from the point of view of ASME Code margins. Therefore, the stress and buckling analyses were conducted using the refueling condition loadings. Figure 19 through 22 show the membrane meridional and circumferential stress distributions from the refueling condition loads. Figure 23 shows the calculated average values of meridional and circumferential stresses that are used in the buckling margin evaluation.

Figure 24 shows the first buckling mode with sym-sym boundary conditions. The load factor for this mode is 6.739. The load factor with asym-sym boundary conditions is 6.887 and the mode shape shown in Figure 25. It is clear that the sym-sym boundary condition gives the least load factor. Figure 26 shows the buckling margin calculation. It is seen that the buckling margin is 5.3% compared to 0% margin in the base case calculation.

To surnmarize, the load factor changes to 6.739 for the refueling condition when the fixity point at the bottom of the sandbed is moved upwards by 1 foot. This results in an excess margin of 5.3% above that required by the Code.

HSMOC-57. wp 4-

C -7y~

mmuclear Calculation Sheet CA5,- c*.)

O.?96L.

'O.'r-5 ° I

o,.&34' d.**

IL a

I * '~V

. tifs, ~ a iicrjr,,4s ~~*t. i ij

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 9 1992 17:41:51 POSTI STRESS STEP-i ITER=I Sx (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS DMX -0*.222715 SMN -- 3561 SMX =7614 xv -1 YV =-0.8 JIL DIST=718.786 XF -303.031 ZF =639.498 rn ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-3561

-2319 mo163.887 1406 2647 388 5131 6372 7614 OYSTER CREEK DW ANALYSIS - OCRFTH1 (NO SAND, REFUELING)

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 9 1992 17:43:35 POSTI STRESS STEP-i ITER=I Sx (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS DMX -0,222715 SMN -- 3561 SMX =7614

.( Xv -1 ZV =-1 vDIST-121.539 OXF -46.39 S*OYF -- 1.382 rnOZF -332.857

- ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN r~- 3561

-2319

-1078 163.887 1406 2647

~5131.

6372 NOF OYSTER CREEK DW1 ANdALYSIS '-OCRFTHI- (NtO SAND. REFUELINGI

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 9 13.2 17:42 :08 POSTI STRESS STEP-i ITER-1 SY (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS DMX -0.222715 SMN -- 9943 SMX -701.049 xv -1 YV a.a.8 DIST,,718. 786 XF -303.031 ZF -639.498 A NCZ --90 V~W CENTROID. HIDDEN

-9943

-8760 L '-7577

% -6395

-5212

-4030 701.049 OYSTER CREEK DWf ANALYSIS - OCRFTH1 (NO SAND, REFUELING)

~.-~-- It ~ a ANSYS DEC 4.4A1 9 1992 II -

17 :43:49 POSTI STRESS

  • ~~~?~:;- A STEP-I ITER=1 SY (AVG)

MIDDLE I----

ELEM CS DMX -0,222715 SMN -- 9943 SMX =701.049 XV -1 ZV -- I o*DIST,,121. 539 OXF -46.39 OYF =-1.382.

C I OZF -382.857 ANGZ--90 (I) CENTROID HIDDEN ow* - 9943 8-760

-7577

-6395 5212

-4030

-2847 701.049 OYSTER CREEK DW ANLALYSIS - OCRFTH1 (NO SAND, REFUELING) NJ

t..ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 10 1992

" - .POST]1 6 : 55 :43 STRESS STEP-I FACT 5 562 UX D NODAL

'MX -0.006073 S.. 'MN -- 0 .0O6072

  1. Vi

,.SMX =0. 00345 To'cmRi xv ]

DIST-89 .401

,Py, -q,!,,, - P5-: -

  • XF

' YF -262

- 5 1 . Id2 1 11 gZF -148 .214 10.-T ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-0.006072 0-0.005014

-0 .003956

-0.002898

-0 .00184 bq5Z-0 .782E -0 3 0 .276E-03

,0 0 . 001334 0.002392

0. 00345 OYSTER CREEK DRYVELL ANALYSIS - OCRFO5BSS (NO SAND. REFUELING)

!!; ANSYS 4. 4A 1

. 1.** DEC 10 1992

-. 6:57:10 POST1 STRESS STEP-i ITER- I Jv FACT-5.562 1-,ý IVV.ýUX D NODAL ADMX -0.006073 SMN -- 0.006072 SMX -0.00345 zxv -i C .. , . .DIST-110 .004 71Y XF -29.455 0

(II YF -0.460954 OZF =365 .922 4 *ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-0 006072

-. 005014

-0. 003956 S-0. 002898

. 00184

.0

_ -0. 782E-03 0.2 7 6E-0 3 a-"'

0.001334 0.002392 0.00345 OYSTER CREEK DRY,/ELL ANALYSIS - OCRF05BSS (_WO SAND, REFUELING)

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 10 1992 8:10 :04 POST1 STRESS STEP-I ITER=2 IFACT-5. 372 ux D NODAL DMX -0.006414 SMN -- 0.006414 SmX =0.002261 xv -I ZV -1

  • DIST-110 .004
  • XF =29.455 8YF -0.460954
  • ZF -365.922 ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-*0.006414

-0.00545

-0.004486

-0.003522

-0.00255a

-0.001594

-0.630E-03 Lj 0. 333E--03 0.001297 0.002261

N-7 h4 ANSYS 4. 4A1 rDEC 10 1992 u'"'~ . ~7:29:018

~

POST1 STRESS f, STEP-i ITER=I

-v FACT=5.58 0 NODAL DMX -0.005974 SMN =--.005972 SMX =0.003682 zv -

S*XF -29.455 CDIST-11 0.004 COYF -0.460954

,$OZE -365.922 ANGZ=-90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-0.005972

-0.0049

-0 003827

-0.002754

-0.001681

-. U 6609E-03 0.464E-03 0.o01537 0.00261 0.003682 OYSTER CREEK DV AMALYSIS - OCRFOSAS (NO SAND, REFUELING)

J-

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 10 1992 10:12 :22 POSTI STRESS STEP-i ITER- 1 FACT-7.7037 ux D NODAL DMX -0.003492 SMN -- 0.002088 SMX =0.002164 XV -1 zv =-1

-DIST-110 .004 vX F -29.455 S"YE -0 . 469954

  • ZF o365.922 nI I ANGZ =- 90 CENTROID HIDDEN O  ! B~m -0 . 002088

-0.001615

-0.001143

-0.198E-03 r *

  • 0 .274E-03 0.747E-03 0.001219 0.001691 0.002164 OYSTER CREEK OW ANALYSIS - OCRFBSAA (NO SAND, REFUELING)

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC I0 1992 8:18:30 POST1 STRESS STEP-I ITER=1 SX (AVG)

MIDJLE ELEM CS DMX.-0.222456 SMM -- 35S4 SMX -6950 XV -1 YV -0o.8 DIST=718.786 XF -303.031 ZF -639.49a ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

.- 2387

-1220

-52.809 1114 2281 3448 4615 O95YS OYSTER CREEK DOdAMALYSIS- OCRF06S (MO SANO, REFUELING)

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 10 1992 S8:21 :15 POSTI STRESS STEP-i ITER-I SX (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS DMX -0.222456 SMN -- 3554 SMX -6950 XV -i

"* zv =-i

  • DIST-121.539 OX{F -46 .39 F -- 1.312
  • ZF -382.857 ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN rT "

-3554

! I -2387

-1220

-52.809 1114 2281 344a 4615 5783 6950 OYSTER CREEK DW ANALYSIS OCRFO.6S (NO SAND, REFUELING)

ANSYS 4. 4A1 DEC 10 1992 8:18:45 POST1 STRESS STEP- I ITER=I SY (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS FH+H-Hi DMX -0.222456 SMN -- 8767 SMX =694.653 XV =1 YV -- a.8 DIST-718. 786

- XF -303.031 ZF -639.498 ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN en -8767

-7716

,,.= ' ' 6664

-561

-4562

, i I= it ,* * -2459

-1408

't

-356.637 694.653

  • 9,t. -c OYSTER CREEK OW4 ANdALYSIS -OCRF06S (NO :SAND, REFUELING) I-J

.. ANSYS 4. 4A

";*;*:'**,,.'-, i*; :"' DEC 10 1992 oy .POSTI STRESS

~ '~Ii' ~~ J~J~¶ ~V' d STEPi

,....ITER:I

, .I: ~.:SY (DAVG)

ELEM CS DMX -0.222456

- , _SM( -694.653

..' z ý XV -1I

.1 ZV --

. --, *FDIST-121.539

  • XF -46.39
  • YF -- 1.382
  • X**.,. ZF -382 .857 tv ANGZ--90 CENTROID

£ * -8767HIDDEN

-7716

, * ..- 6664

  • . * -5613

-4562

  • F - -' -3511

-2459

  • * -1408

-356.637 694.653 OYSTER CREEK DOl ANALYSIS OCRF06S (NO SAND, REFUELING)

.... . * .... "". ANSYS 4 .4A1

,,,,: . ;l,*. - .;' DEC 10 1992 t*  :.*,.*.'* *h,.*,,:*,*;i.,*:i i'*1 0 :3 6 :4 S5 (4v'..., * :':. . POSTI STRESS

.- STEP-1
i
','!- ITER=I

'.*;: FACT =5.9 [

' ' " 0D NODAL IN DMX -0.005175 SMV --

- 0.005174

.4 ml SMX =0.00326

,s i xv 1]

,, -1 -o0Va

. A1 O-DIST-89.401 0)(F -262.142

  • 7; . ,,... YF =-51, 111 IM
    '.-I. OZF -148. 214

,,..*..* ANG Z =-90 A--' CENTROID HIDDEN g * -0.005174

-0.004237

-o .oo8E-3

-0.002362

-0.00138

0. 44SE-03

"* I* 0.001386

  • I
  • 0,002323 0.00326 cT

>ANSYS DEC*':

  • ...**.;'**:.,;Y.r,*,!.:,..
i, 4.4A1 10 1992

-* -*"' '*-10 :37 56 5 POST1 STRESS STEP=1 S ~ITER= I FACT-5.91 1411WMIA NODAL We-,(i ~ . ~ DMX -0 . 005175 vq;.: ~ ... V I SMN -- 0 .005174 SMX =U.00326 XV -

ZV =-

"* *DIST-100.0084 "XF -29. 455

'2YF -0 . 46095.4 C 4 *ZF -365. 922.

To ANGZ=- 90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-0. 005174 0% -0.004237

-0.0033

-0.002362

-0.001425

___ -0.488E-03

0. 449E-03 O. 001386 0.002323 0.00325 OYTER CREEK DRYWELL ANPALYSIS - OCRFo6BSS (MO SAND, REFUELING)

,.I

DEC 10 1992 POST1 STRESS SSTEP=t P ITER=l

".N FACT=5.945 D NODAL 7 V IDMX -0.005178 nM W 3SMN =-0.005177 SMX =0.003584 EV =-I"

-lDIST=110.O04

,,-XF =29.455 C -YF =0.460954

". ZF =3b5.922

  • ANMGZ=-90.

CENTROID HIDDEN

-0.005177

-0.004203

-0.00323

-0.002256

... -0.00.1.283

-0.310E-03 0.664E-03 0.001637 o.oozaii 0.003584 OYSTER CREEK DW ANALYSIS - OCRF06AS (HO 5AND,. REFUELING)

flý 1( -N,

ANSYS 4.4A1 DEC 7 1992 12 :44: 31 POSTI STRESS STEP-I ITER-1 SX (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS DMX -0.211959 SMN -- 3547 SMX -6041 XV -1 YV -- 0.8 C. DIST-71a.786 XF -303.031 ZF -639.49a AMGZ--90

  • lCENTROID HIDDEN

- 3547

-24a2

-*1416

-350.884 714.437 1780 2845 3910 4976 6041 C.

OYSTER CREEK DRYV ELL ANALYSIS - OYCR1S (NO SAND, REFUELING)

ry .q . ; -ANSYS 4. 4A1

.::' DEC: 7 1992

[ "2 :33:33 POST I STRESS STEP-I ITER= I Sx (AVG)

MIDDL E ELEM CS DMX -0.211959 SMN -- 3547 SMX =6041 XV -I ZV --1 ODIST=121 539

__ i XF -46. 39 C ' SYF - 1. 382

-382 .857 t.~' -ZF ANGZ--90 CENTROID -3547HIDDEN

-2482

-1416

-350..884 714.437

___1780 284S 3910

  • . . .
  • 49.76 6041

UASYS 4.4A1 DEC 7 1992 12 :44:44 POSTI STRESS STEP-1 ITER1I SY (AVG)

MIDDLE ELEM CS DMX -0.211959 SMN -- 7956 SMX -766.953 o-n XV YV

-1

-- 0.8 DIST-718-.786 XF -303.031 ZF -639.498 ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-7956

-6987

-6018 S-S049

-4079 OI I I I I I# ( S

- 2141

-202.301 766.953 c~.

OYSTER CREEK DRYV/ELL ANALYSIS - OYCR1S (MO SAlaD, REFUELING)

N)

-r

- .* 2.- ANSYS 4.4A1

". POSTI STRESS

,,!i.+.j STE P-=1

.... ITER= I

  • ,'!XSY (A G I.W4# , MIDDLE
  • ..* ELEM CS V ' DMX -0 .211959 SMN -- 7956 SMX =766 953

"*]'*$...,.*Z V -"I C, " oDIST 1, -121 539

  • YF -461.1- .39 "YF 382 ANGZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-7956

-6987

  • * -5049

-4079

-3110

-214

-1172 7 622.301 766.953

APPLIED MER1DIONAL AND CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESSES - REFUELING CCND:TION ONE FOOT INCREASE IN FIXITY CASE; STRESS RUN: OCRFRLSB.OUT AVERASE APPLIED MERIDIONAL STRESS:

The average meridional stress is defined as the average stress across the elevation including nodes 1419 through 1467. Stresses at nodes 1419 and 1467 are weighted only one half as rtmch as the other nodes because they lie on the edge of the modeled 1/lOth section of the dryveLt and thus r.present only 7/2 of tne area represented by the other nodes.

  1. of Nodes
  1. of Meridicnat Meridiconal Nodes Nodes Stress (ksi) Stress (ksi) 1419- 1467 2 -7.726 -7.726 1423-1463 2 -7.738 -15.476 1427-1459 2 -7.760 -15.520 1431-1455 2 -7.682 -15.364 1435- 1451 2 -7.394 -14.788 1439-1447 2 -7.014 -14.028 1443 -6.834 -6.834 Total: 12 -89.736 12 Average Meridicnal Stress: -7.478 (ksi)

AVERAGE APPLIED CIRCUMFERENTIAL STRESS:

The circumferential stress is averaged along the vertical tine from node 1223 to node 2058.

  1. of Modes
  1. of Circumferential Clrcumferential Nodes Nodes Stress (ksi) Stress Cksi) 1223 4 -1.175 0.000 1419 0.505 0.505 1615 4.165 4.165 1811 5.846 5.846 2058 5.024 5.024 Total: 4 15.54 4

Average Circumferentiat Stress: 3.85 (ksi)

OCRFSTO6.WKI

AH5YS 4.4A1 DEC 8 1992 6 15 38 POSTI STRESS STEP=1 VF § W, ITEk=1 Flo -,7 Wll-,FACT=6,739

. 1UX D NODAL let DMX =0.003681 rSM =-0,00368 SMX =0.001848 i iZv =.-I

,DIST=110.004 IXF =29.455

-YF =0.460954 ANGZ=-90 CENTROID HIDDEN

-0.00368

-0.003065

-0.002451

-0.001837

-0.001223

-0.609E-03 0.567E-05 0.620E-03 0.001234 0.001848

DEC 9 1992

, 4...i: POST1

. STRESS

,'A 2:i STEP-1 ITER:I

. Y -, 1-1 FACT-6.887 UX A ~0D MODAL v DMX -0.0"5136 SMN -- 0.005134 Mv;SMX =0.003244 XV -I ZV --1I DIST-110. 004 ii *XF -29.455 C 'YF -0.460954 AtdCZ--90 CENTROID HIDDEM

-0.005134

-0.004203

-0.003273

-0.002342

-0.001411 f * -o . 4ao E-o03 0,45E-03 0-

0. 001382 0.002313 0.80032t44 O..Y'rER CREEK DRYVELL AP4ALYSIS (ASYFI-SYMM- (NO SAND, REFUELING

CALCULATION OF ALLOWABLE BUCKLING STRESSES - REFUELING CASE, NO SAND ONE FOOT INCREASE IN FIXITY CASE; STRESS RUN OCRFRLSB.OUT, BUCKLING RUN OYCRSBBK.OUT LOAD ITEM PARAMETER UNITS VALUE FACTOR

  • DRYWELL GEOMETRY AND MATERIALS 1 Sphere Radius, R (in.) 420 2 Sphere Thickness, t (in.) 0.736 3 Material Yield Strength, Sy (ksi) 38 4 Material Modulus of Elasticity, E (ksi) 29600 5 Factor of Safety, FS - 2 11 *** BUCKLING ANALYSIS RESULTS 6 Theoretical Elastic Instability Stress, Ste (ksi) 50.394 6.139 C *** STRESS ANALYSIS RESULTS 7 Applied Meridional Compressive Stress, Sm (ksi) 7.478 8 Applied Circumferential Tensile Stress, Sc (ksi) 3.885
    • CAPACITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 9 Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHAi - 0.207 10 Circumferential Stress Equivalent Pressure, Peq (psi) 13.616 11 IX' Parameter, X= (Peq/4E) (d/t)A2 0.075 12 Delta C (From Figure - ) - U.064 13 Modified Capacity Reduction Factor, ALPHA,i,mod - 0.313 14 Reduced Elastic Instability Stress, Se (ksi) 15.753 2.107
      • PLASTICITY REDUCTION FACTOR CALCULATION 15 Yield Stress Ratio, DELTA=Se/Sy - 0.41-5 16 Plasticity Reduction Factor, NUi - 1.000 17 Inelastic Instability Stress, Si = NUi x Se (ksi) 15.753 2.1.07 S** ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRESS CALCULATION 1.8 Allowable Compressive Stress, Sall= Si/FS (ksi) 7.877 1.053 1.9 Compressive Stress Margin, M=(Sall/Sm -1) x 100% (%) 5.3 REFNSND2. WKI
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML072780484&oldid=2573964"